If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. If you are registered and logged in, you won't see any ads in the forums -- they'll magically disappear!

to alliances

hope this is a new suggestion, donīt have the time to read all threads

ok, as we see nobody makes a real alliance. my suggestion, make establishing alliances more attravtive. donīt know if this is possible but what about a extra top alliance list in the gewar tool. and it should be more official to be in an alliance. example: one user want to establish an alliance, he have to send you (mickey) a message. now the alliance exist in the game, it have to got a name and you can see the name in each of theirs cities and armies and home bases atomaticly [right word???hope you know what i mean]. City/Army/Home Base- Player- Alliance.
the player who established the alli is the general, he will be the only person who can change the alli name, can give new members an entry (with the alli password), can change alli password, and can kick users out of the alli.

more ideas to this, you should be able to help your alliance partners.

example: player-x is attacking player-y of the alli1. player-y doesnīt have enough armies to defend, so his alli partner player-z of alli1 can send him money or armies.

alli partners wonīt be able to attack each other

if you want to leave an alli, you have to click a button and then it takes, for example, 3 days before you are out of this alli, this makes sure that no one can jump from alli to alli only to spy them or so...

Allies yes, formality no.

Is that more realistic though? I mean, your allies are your allies because of what they said they'll do to you and more importantly what they actually do. It seems more interesting if you don't know if you can trust your allies than having any formal rules about it. For instance the ANZUS alliance (Aust. New Zealand and the US) was going on for quite a while but then because the US wouldn't say whether they had nukes on their aircraft carrier then New Zealand wouldn't let them harbour and then New Zealand got booted from the alliance. I for one would enjoy the devious reality than any formality. Not that I'd stab you in the back.

Plus being able to transfer money instantly to an ally sure but troops. Looking at the map I don't see us in the 24th century so I'm pretty sure no one's made "Star Trek" type transporters. Surely if you want to help your ally with your armies, they have to trek to the frontline the slow way like the rest of us. Another historical example of this was when Churchill during WWII insisted Aussie troops goto the European front even though the Allies knew that the Japanese where coming to invade Oz. They were half way across the Indian Ocean from Australia before our prime minister pulled them back to Australia's defense at New Guinea. If we could transfer troops willy nilly about the globe it would lose the excitement of knowing whether your allies would get there in time or not.

On that thought, is there a mechanism to help your allies defend their cities? At the moment it looks as though you can only attack a city not anyone outside of a city (who might be waiting for their allies before attacking).

Do unto others as you would want them to do to you. How in the hell did this get to google search???

Defending Cities

If intercepting an enemy army with your army is made possible, then that feature would allow you to manually defend any city, regardless of who owns it. All you would have to do is sit outside the city and attack any enemy armies that approach the city.

I think this method of defending cities would be a better because it serves an overall greater purpose. Its not solely about defending cities, but being given the ability to intercept (and weaken/destroy) enemy armies. Its being able to attack armies that aren't in cities or bases. (and it would make those trans-oceanic trips more risky)

But getting back to the point of the thread....

I agree that informal (secret?) alliances are better to have than formal alliances. But in order to foster informal alliances, players should have an in-game way to communicate, other than this forum, as suggested elsewhere. (Google Talk?). Naming armies to communicate to other players isnt the most desirable method.

Ssh! Wanna deal?

If you click on the persons name, you are able to send a private message anyway. So alliances don't require GoogleTalk or forum messages or changing the name of your army.
From what I've heard about GoogleTalk it's a rather limited version of Jabber and not worth moving away from my other numerous IM's.

Do unto others as you would want them to do to you. How in the hell did this get to google search???

more ideas to this, you should be able to help your alliance partners.

example: player-x is attacking player-y of the alli1. player-y doesnīt have enough armies to defend, so his alli partner player-z of alli1 can send him money or armies.

alli partners wonīt be able to attack each other

if you want to leave an alli, you have to click a button and then it takes, for example, 3 days before you are out of this alli, this makes sure that no one can jump from alli to alli only to spy them or so...

The "New Allaince" Has been doing this same thing for about a week and it works.